Wingman:  U.S. Airspace Modernization Needs To Stay On Track

The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that the FAA put its Free Flight Phase 1 and Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) initiatives on hold, pending a reassessment of the budget and security ramifications on the two programs caused by the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Wingman believes a pause in either of these programs is exactly what is not needed, both for practical and psychological reasons.  The practical reasons have to do with the need to maintain the little momentum that exists, and to get payback from the substantial time and resources that are already committed.  The psychological reasons have to do with combating the negativism and doubt that frequently accompanies technological change.

The OIG's ambivalence seems to come from some ignorance about how Free Flight uses several developing technologies to achieve its ultimate goal, and how each incremental step serves to add efficiency and safety to U.S. airspace.  Honest reassessments are essential to the success of large programs such as these, but they need to be made without shutting down the project, even for a few months.  Such an action is fodder for modernization critics and can be seized upon by timid stakeholders reluctant to make needed investments.

The Inspector General’s report states that the FAA's Operational Evolution Plan “includes satellite-based systems, such as automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, local area augmentation systems for precision landings, airspace redesign, datalink communications, and weather technologies, all of which are outside the Free Flight Program [Wingman’s emphasis].”  This must surprise the members of RTCA’s Free Flight Task Force, who in their 1995 report, specifically list all of these technologies as being enablers for the concept. 

But let’s accept that as a misstatement.  (By the way, ADS-B isn’t a satellite-based system either.)  In another part of its report, the OIG acknowledges that Free Flight depends on GPS, LAAS (local area augmentation for precision GPS approaches), datalink, ADS-B and better exchanges of information.  The point is, these technologies were always assumed to be the foundation upon which Free Flight would be built.  The two efforts are complimentary, not competitors.

The OIG says the FAA needs to “harmonize” the management and budgets of its Free Flight and OEP efforts because of the interdependencies between them.  Wingman agrees, but would have hoped and expected that they always were coordinated.  In any event, even if that synchronization is just now getting started, it doesn’t require a stand-down. 

Is Free Flight Viable After September 11th?

One of the OIG's primary concerns is how September’s terrorist attacks might have changed the priorities of Free Flight and the Operational Evolution Plan.  The security ramifications of Free Flight are of course important, but so are its efficiencies and safety improvements.

The OIG’s main security unease seems to be based on the mistaken idea, that under Free Flight, pilots will fly randomly to and fro without any coordination with air traffic managers; therefore, a suicidal pilot can more easily attack a target without early detection.  In fact just the opposite is more likely.  While Free Flight will allow pilots more control in optimizing their flight paths, this can – and should – be done in a way that gives everyone involved more information about what is occurring, more quickly and reliably, than is the case today.  In other words, Free Flight’s technology can augment security by increasing everyone’s situational awareness and communications’ capability.

Is Free Flight Less Safe?

In one of its most puzzling criticisms about Free Flight, the OIG says: “Experts caution that [Free Flight] automation could introduce new safety issues that were not, and could not be, anticipated….[Therefore, special] attention to safety is particularly important because [Free Flight] technologies will be deployed at some of the same air traffic control facilities that have witnessed increases in operational errors.” The OIG appears to be arguing that even though the current system has safety deficiencies, we need to be careful about fixing it, because the fix might be even worse.   

Wingman wonders if this isn’t an example of using safety concerns as a canard to attack new technology and concepts when other arguments are weak.  Of course we need to avoid making things worse, but with Free Flight’s superior pilot and controller tools, plus proper attention to human factors and equipment certification, this shouldn’t happen.

The OIG notes that ATC operational errors have increased by 51 percent from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2000.  But while admitting that none of those incidents were traceable to a Free Flight tool, the OIG says, “It would be prudent for FAA to get an independent, scientific assessment of the tools’ potential impacts on safety to assess failure modes and what happens in rare or unusual circumstances.”

Yes, Free Flight tools may well affect safety as the OIG report suggests.  But why would the effect necessarily be negative as the OIG’s comment implies?  In fact, there is considerable a priori – and some empirical – evidence, that Free Flight will have a positive effect on safety, just as many other new aviation technologies have had in the past.  If there is going to be a safety investigation about Free Flight tools, how about also investigating the safety detriment of delaying their implementation

Some Free Flight Tools Are Challenging

The OIG notes some Free Flight controller tools have proved difficult to implement.  The user request evaluation tool (URET), which helps the controller probe for downstream conflicts to facilitate route and altitude change requests, and the passive final approach spacing tool (pFAST), which was designed to help controllers manage airport arrivals, have both been problematic in their development.  In fact, pFAST glitches have been so vexing that further installations have been stopped.

Wingman believes these types of setbacks should be expected, and patience and persistence are needed as they are worked out.  It’s ironic that some of the criticisms about these new tools – that they increase workload and reduce situational awareness – are exactly the opposite of what Free Flight is intended to do.  But difficulties with these tools can be resolved, and their shortcomings removed.  It is instructive to note that some pilots made similar criticisms of flight management computers and modern flight guidance when they first were introduced into “glass” cockpits during the early 80s, but those complaints are rarely heard anymore.

To be fair, the OIG didn’t attack the premise of Free Flight; it only called into question some of its current assumptions and the management of its priorities.  Still any suggestions to delay the already sluggish pace of urgently needed airspace modernization must be looked at with caution, and even some suspicion.

Fortunately, after some initial uncertainty, the FAA said it "does not concur that we should pause the execution of the Free Flight and OEP initiatives, and there is no plan to pause them.  We remain firm in our commitment to deliver free flight products to industry as promised."

Wingman hopes all stakeholders maintain the same resolve.  01-09-2002.

Click here to become a registered Flt Tech Online subscriber and receive headlines delivered to your e-mail each week

Click here to go back to the headlines